Did the Flood Really Happen?

Page 12 of 13 [ 196 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Next

Did the flood actually happened?

Yes, it was global	16%	[ 9 ]
Yes, it was not global	18%	[ 10 ]
Yes, and it killed all the dinasours	2%	[ 1 ]
Yes, and the flood story falsifies evolution	0%	[ 0 ]
No, it's just a rip-off of older mythology	18%	[ 10 ]
Yes, and it's a rip-off of older mythology	4%	[ 2 ]
No, the world is younger than that	2%	[ 1 ]
No, the world is older than that	13%	[ 7 ]
No, it was something else	0%	[ 0 ]
The rainbow is the irrefutable proof that a flood happened	5%	[ 3 ]
I don't care	11%	[ 6 ]
I do care	0%	[ 0 ]
What's the question again?	0%	[ 0 ]
All of the above	0%	[ 0 ]
See the results	13%	[ 7 ]

Total votes : 56

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

30 Jun 2010, 1:34 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:

To suggest that my acceptance of a broad range of arguments for the truth that is evolution, is an accident, is infuriating. I am swayed not by ideology but by the mass of evidence supporting the theory. You seem to be suggesting that someone who has not studied evolutionary biology cannot come to a reasoned acceptance of the theory, which if so, is a complete nonsense.

Neither you nor ianap understand the field well enough to meaningfully evaluate claims made in it. You are both accepting the claims of sources you regard as trustworthy, and both of you have chosen your respective sources at least partially for ideological reasons. You happen to have chosen better sources in this regard than ianap has, but the underlying epistemology is still basically the same. I mean, you certainly have not actually examined the evidence any more than ianap has, so it's very hard for you to plausibly claim that you are "swayed not by ideology but by the mass of evidence."

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

30 Jun 2010, 1:46 pm

Orwell wrote:

DentArthurDent wrote:

Ooh! Ooh! How incompetent am I? (note: I do actually kind of expect to fail as well)

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

30 Jun 2010, 1:52 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Ooh! Ooh! How incompetent am I? (note: I do actually kind of expect to fail as well)

In your favor is the fact that you have cited that article about the irrationality of laymen challenging experts, so at least you do recognize that you are accepting the opinions of a (presumably well-informed) source rather than relying purely on your own judgment.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

30 Jun 2010, 2:00 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Ooh! Ooh! How incompetent am I? (note: I do actually kind of expect to fail as well)

No more than I, I am just a layman who doesn't know anything after all. And well, iamnotaparakeet may actually know things a lot more than I do, so I probably fail, but that doesn't really matter is it? I mean, I pressume that idiots are irrelevant to reality

_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?

Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
Location: In Cognito

30 Jun 2010, 2:04 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Gromit, why do you think speciation is what YEC's are opposed to?

I didn't say they all are. But n4mwd sees speciation as proof that Genesis is wrong. It's his criterion. Here is the quote again:

n4mwd wrote:

As far as the Bible goes, yes, IF it can be proven that Genesis is false, then ALL of the Bible, including the new testament is also false. But there is no conclusive proof of macro-evolution.

You don't have to agree with him.

greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

30 Jun 2010, 2:10 pm

n4mwd wrote:

As far as the Bible goes, yes, IF it can be proven that Genesis is false, then ALL of the Bible, including the new testament is also false.

Not exactly, to maintain integrity of the Bible: "if Genesis is proven false, then it is our interpretation of Genesis that is being proven false, so we have to reinterpret scripture." That is what Catholics did, after the conflict with Copernican heliocentrism and Galileo.

_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?

aspi-rant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Sep 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,448
Location: denmark

30 Jun 2010, 2:12 pm

now. let's throw this also into the mix:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ

flood. what flood?

:lol:

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

30 Jun 2010, 2:16 pm

Orwell wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Ooh! Ooh! How incompetent am I? (note: I do actually kind of expect to fail as well)

Well, right, and I would think that I at least know something about the theoretical workings of science, as well as having a reasonable knowledge of theology.

Jono
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,677
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

30 Jun 2010, 4:36 pm

Aimless wrote:

I can't read through 10 pages but has anyone mentioned Gilgamesh? If there was a large flood it would have seemed global to the population at the time. Perhaps there was a devastating flood and the story grew from there.

http://www.historywiz.com/flood.htm

I think there was. Some mythology is based on a distorted version of historical fact, like Helen of Troy is. In the case of the flood, archaeologists have discovered signs of a major flood in the Sumerian city of Shuruppak. Although it may of seemed global to the population at the time, it was in fact a local flood and didn't cover the entire surface of the Earth like what creationists like to claim. It is probably the case that this is the flood that the Epics of Gilgamesh is based on. Since the story of Noah's flood is itself probably based on this myth, it would seem that the unnamed antediluvian civilization mentioned in the bible was the early Sumerian civilization. Here's a link to a Wikipedia article on the city of Shuruppak:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuruppak.

So there you go.

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

30 Jun 2010, 5:54 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Orwell wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Ooh! Ooh! How incompetent am I? (note: I do actually kind of expect to fail as well)

In your favor is the fact that you have cited that article about the irrationality of laymen challenging experts, so at least you do recognize that you are accepting the opinions of a (presumably well-informed) source rather than relying purely on your own judgment.

And from what I can see this is all I have done, I have not tried to prove evolutionary theory just stated that the mass of evidence is on the side of it and therefore to believe otherwise is bordering upon idiocy. I do not need a PhD in climatology and spend years studying the data to come to the conclusion that so many great and respected minds have a point, that is not to say that I take everything at face value (which seems to be your accusation). A basic/intermediate understanding of the concepts is required to get a grip on on the debate and then a judgement can be made on which side appears to have the facts correct. This is not always easy in a contentious debate (which requires the layman to garner greater knowledge)but with the likes of evolution where the naysayers are so easily and readily rebuffed is hardly difficult nor requiring a great deal of intelligence to see the truth of the matter. So I totally reject your insult that I came to the correct conclusion by chance, far from it

_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

30 Jun 2010, 6:12 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:

Well, this is true, but you have no better way of knowing it than ianap does of "knowing" that evolution is unsupported by the evidence—you trust the scientists who do know this to be the case, whereas ianap trusts organizations like CMI. In both cases you are relying on someone else's work rather than fully understanding the issue yourselves.

Quote:

A basic/intermediate understanding of the concepts is required to get a grip on on the debate and then a judgement can be made on which side appears to have the facts correct.

Not really. By most people's standards, I probably have a "basic/intermediate understanding" of physics, but I am nowhere even near competent to evaluate the evidence for quantum mechanics, much less string theory. To understand the debate (well, there isn't actually a debate on this topic, but whatever) it is necessary to spend quite a lot of time studying several different subjects.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

30 Jun 2010, 8:24 pm

Orwell wrote:

Ok, but being able to correctly identify which authorities to trust is a bit of a feat and does say something about a person. Certainly one can do research on which authorities are better as well, which means that this is not *necessarily* a matter of luck.

Quote:

To understand which side is right, a lot less is necessary though, isn't it? I mean, even a competence in philosophy of religion can exclude certain ideas such as YEC, and if such are excluded as well as past ideas such as Lamarckism(which we know fails due to what we have seen in the passing on of traits and from our study of genetics starting with Mendel) then one can competently both reject something and come to another conclusion while still being a dilettante of sorts.

I mean, Orwell, let's extend your model of acceptance of ideas into politics. How much knowledge would you think it needed to have a reasonable opinion on a political matter? Surely it wouldn't be enough to be correct on every element. In fact, few people have that as few cross-disciplinary experts of International Politics and Legal Theory and Economics and Sociology and Political Philosophy and Environmental Science and whatever else exist. However, one does have to be able to know how to find the right answers and have some exposure to the basic reasons why X seems better than Y.

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

01 Jul 2010, 5:29 pm

Orwell wrote:

Well obviously I am not going to trawl through the data compiled by years and years of research, to suggest that one cannot come to an informed decision by looking at the weight of evidence and the sources of that evidence, listening to opposing scientists debate their areas of expertise is nonsensical. I mean do you propose that every government decision be made and implemented by committees of experts in the field and only them, don't be ridiculous, you take advice, listen to opposing ideas and make an informed decision. May be there is an element of luck in this process but to suggest that coming to the correct conclusion is purely a matter of luck is plain stupid. You seem to be fixated by the erroneous belief that my acceptance of the fact that is evolution, has been arrived at by my atheism which in turn was decided by my political ideology, this is entirely incorrect. I have accepted evolution since I first understood the concept, which was at a time when I was also still very agnostic.

Orwell wrote:

That is a very deceitful analogy, as you yourself have pointed out to me, string theory is an incredibly complex concept and to have an informed opinion about it requires more than a intermediate knowledge of a swathe specialized areas of study, quantum would be little different.

AG; I will get back to you on your criticism of my political beliefs later when I have more time

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

01 Jul 2010, 5:51 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:

You personally cannot come to an informed decision if you are actually not informed on the subject, no. You can make the rational decision of deferring to the opinions of experts, but that is not quite the same thing.

Quote:

I mean do you propose that every government decision be made and implemented by committees of experts in the field and only them,

That would be an improvement over our current system. Look how much supply-side nonsense is accepted as economic truth when crafting public policy.

Quote:

And evolution isn't a very complex subject? How about climate change? I bet you'd be quick to assert that you have a real, meaningful opinion on that subject, but as far as I can tell the issue of global warming is just as intractable as quantum mechanics or string theory to a layman.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

01 Jul 2010, 6:01 pm

Orwell wrote:

DentArthurDent wrote:

Quote:

I mean do you propose that every government decision be made and implemented by committees of experts in the field and only them,

That would be an improvement over our current system. Look how much supply-side nonsense is accepted as economic truth when crafting public policy.

Quote:

I dunno, how does your view of "informed decision" really account for the historical division of labor in all subjects? It seems to me that all people defer somewhat to other people and to past people, even evolutionary theorists aren't usually smart enough to have invented the ideas that they willingly use.

Wombat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Oct 2006
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,051

02 Jul 2010, 1:02 am

The "wisdom of the ancients".

How can anyone possibly assume that some bronze age nomads knew more about the universe than we do?

In the 19th century doctors thought that disease was caused by "bad air".

A hundred years before that they thought that if you got sick then either god was punishing you or some witch had given you the "evil eye".

This was well after the founding of America. Remember the Salem witch trials?

Page 12 of 13 [ 196 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Next

Jump to:

Did the Flood Really Happen? Post Reply New Topic

Did the Flood Really Happen?